4 ms·

> IN GENERAL. A covered person may not provide online hosting services or back-end online services to any other entity that is not owned by t

> IN GENERAL. A covered person may not provide online hosting services or back-end online services to any other entity that is not owned by the covered person Huh? That doesn't seem to make sense.

paulgb 6y ago
It means if you work for a company that runs an online marketplace/search engine of a certain size (i.e. Amazon, Microsoft, Google), you can't offer cloud compute services to other companies. I agree though, it's a mess to follow this. It takes effort to make a seven page bill so convoluted. It's the spaghetti code of law.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
A "covered person"… > means a person that is in the business of offering an online platform to connect third parties to an online marketplace, exchange, or search engine which …followed by some stipulations on users and revenue. So as I understand it, Amazon/Google/Microsoft would have to spin off AWS/GCP/Azure, etc.
- toast0 6y ago
  Adding those two things up, it sounds like it says A person that is in the business of offering an online platform to connect third parties to an online marketplace, exchange, or search engine may not provide online hosting services or back-end online services to any other entity that is not owned by the covered person. I don't know how you offer an online platform without providing back-end online services.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    For example, Amazon could not simultaneously operate Amazon.com (the e-commerce website) and AWS (the cloud provider). They'd need to choose one or the other.
    - toast0 6y ago
      Maybe that's the intent, but it sounds like Amazon couldn't simultaneously operate Amazon.com and Amazon.com back-end services for sellers.
      - jvanderbot 6y ago
        They cannot provide those backend services for sale. They can own computers to provide their amazon.com service. "A covered person may 15not provide online hosting services or back-end 16online services to any other entity that is not 17owned by the covered person"
        toast0 6y ago
        Does that end the amazon marketplace?
akersten 6y ago
It doesn't make sense, it's word salad like the rest of the bill. It's specifically intended to get a rise out of his constituents.
killingtime74 6y ago
You have to realise this is not English but legal English
- salawat 6y ago
  I believe the term you're looking for is "legalese".
hn8788 6y ago
I'm just guessing, but it seems like the point of that part is to keep big tech companies from being able to effectively kill off competition by also owning the platforms that competitors would build on.
- kokanator 6y ago
  This seems like the best translation. If you control your competitors infrastructure, you have a unique power position and the ability to shut off hosting at any moment. Sure the tenant could fight in court but by that time their business is dead.
- cle 6y ago
  This is also from Hawley's website: > Example: Amazon cannot continue to operate an overwhelmingly dominant retail business and simultaneously own an enormous share of the cloud computing technology upon which the internet itself is built. Is there any evidence that Amazon actually leverages this? Or is able to leverage it?
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    See: January 2021
  - kmeisthax 6y ago
    https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-reportedly-used-data-from-sellers-to-develop-competing-products/ https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-reportedly-used-data-from-s... Amazon regularly accesses their own platform's sales data to determine how to make competing products. I would not be surprised if this was the game everywhere else, though. Remember: physical retail invented a lot of the scummy business tactics we complain about with Amazon.
    - cle 6y ago
      From what I can tell, that had nothing to do with AWS.
SllX 6y ago
Apple must divest iCloud; Amazon must divest AWS; Microsoft must divest Azure, etc. I guess alternatively they could divest their marketplace, exchange and search engine components instead of their backend components. The goal here seems to be to run up a ton of forced divestures in a “here’s what I want you to do, you figure out how to do it” way. EDIT: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-bust-big-tech-act https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-bust... Here’s the PR statement out of Senator Hawley’s office, for the summary.

> IN GENERAL. A covered person may not provide online hosting services or back-end online services to any other entity that is not owned by the covered person Huh? That doesn't seem to make sense.

paulgb 6y ago

It means if you work for a company that runs an online marketplace/search engine of a certain size (i.e. Amazon, Microsoft, Google), you can't offer cloud compute services to other companies. I agree though, it's a mess to follow this. It takes effort to make a seven page bill so convoluted. It's the spaghetti code of law.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

A "covered person"… > means a person that is in the business of offering an online platform to connect third parties to an online marketplace, exchange, or search engine which …followed by some stipulations on users and revenue. So as I understand it, Amazon/Google/Microsoft would have to spin off AWS/GCP/Azure, etc.

toast0 6y ago
Adding those two things up, it sounds like it says A person that is in the business of offering an online platform to connect third parties to an online marketplace, exchange, or search engine may not provide online hosting services or back-end online services to any other entity that is not owned by the covered person. I don't know how you offer an online platform without providing back-end online services.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  For example, Amazon could not simultaneously operate Amazon.com (the e-commerce website) and AWS (the cloud provider). They'd need to choose one or the other.
  - toast0 6y ago
    Maybe that's the intent, but it sounds like Amazon couldn't simultaneously operate Amazon.com and Amazon.com back-end services for sellers.
    - jvanderbot 6y ago
      They cannot provide those backend services for sale. They can own computers to provide their amazon.com service. "A covered person may 15not provide online hosting services or back-end 16online services to any other entity that is not 17owned by the covered person"
      - toast0 6y ago
        Does that end the amazon marketplace?

akersten 6y ago

It doesn't make sense, it's word salad like the rest of the bill. It's specifically intended to get a rise out of his constituents.

killingtime74 6y ago

You have to realise this is not English but legal English

salawat 6y ago
I believe the term you're looking for is "legalese".

hn8788 6y ago

I'm just guessing, but it seems like the point of that part is to keep big tech companies from being able to effectively kill off competition by also owning the platforms that competitors would build on.

kokanator 6y ago
This seems like the best translation. If you control your competitors infrastructure, you have a unique power position and the ability to shut off hosting at any moment. Sure the tenant could fight in court but by that time their business is dead.
cle 6y ago
This is also from Hawley's website: > Example: Amazon cannot continue to operate an overwhelmingly dominant retail business and simultaneously own an enormous share of the cloud computing technology upon which the internet itself is built. Is there any evidence that Amazon actually leverages this? Or is able to leverage it?
- nitrogen 6y ago
  See: January 2021
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-reportedly-used-data-from-sellers-to-develop-competing-products/ https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-reportedly-used-data-from-s... Amazon regularly accesses their own platform's sales data to determine how to make competing products. I would not be surprised if this was the game everywhere else, though. Remember: physical retail invented a lot of the scummy business tactics we complain about with Amazon.
  - cle 6y ago
    From what I can tell, that had nothing to do with AWS.

SllX 6y ago

Apple must divest iCloud; Amazon must divest AWS; Microsoft must divest Azure, etc. I guess alternatively they could divest their marketplace, exchange and search engine components instead of their backend components. The goal here seems to be to run up a ton of forced divestures in a “here’s what I want you to do, you figure out how to do it” way. EDIT: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-bust-big-tech-act https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-bust... Here’s the PR statement out of Senator Hawley’s office, for the summary.